/ ICOM International Committee for the Training of PersonnelICOM International Committee for Museology

Joint colloquium

METHODOLOGY OF MUSEOlOGYAND PROFESSIONAL TRA~NING

London, July 1983

ICOM International Committee for Museology

Symposium

MUSEUM - TERR.~TORY ......... SOCiETYNEWTENDENCiES/NEW PRACTICES

london, July 1983

/

*

*

Contents

Joint colloquiumMETHODOLOGY OF MUS EO LOGYAND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING

Gluzinski, Wojciech - Wroclav, Poland

comments 2

Str~nsk§, Zbyn~k Z - Brno, Czechoslovakia

comments 14

Symposium~1USEUM - TERRITORY - SOCIETYNE"I TENDENCIES / NEI'I PRACTICES

paper on the work of the ecomuseum 23

Mayrand,

basic

Pierre - Montreal, Canada

Str~nsk~. zbyn~k Z - Grno, Czechoslovakia

comments 28

Stockh0lm, July 1983

Wojciech Gluzinski, Wroclaw - Poland

REIlARXS ON PAnRS ON rIlE SUBJROT

ImTHODOLOGY OF IIUSEOLOGY AND TRAINING OF nRSOliNEL

I. general remark~

COMMENTS

The oolleo~ion of papers:on the above subjeot well illustratAB

the ait~ation in present-day museology. As far as its obJeotive

knowledge of itself 18 oonoerned, ltis apparent that museology~. .

dissolves ln many subJeotive notions; as far 8S its matter ia oon­

oerned, on the other hand, it dioBolves in many different disoi­

plines. Hus~ologi8ta speak many different languages lin semantio

sensei whloh are so impreoise that ~ven the oomparison of their

ideas is diffioult. Th~ ideological differeno~s Professor Buroa.

oo.plains of oannot be blamed for that ao they have found no re­

flection whatever 1n the presented papers. The problem lies, into

m1 mind, 1n the way in whioh the question of museology 1a approa­

ohed. ~eryone who takes it up endeavours to oreate at onoe an

overall pioture ot mus801ogy, but, first, in the image and likeness

ot hi. 0 w n ideal, and, seoond, with the help of e x 1 a t 1 n [

notions, worn out 8S they are by long use and, therefore, blurred,

ambiguous, and variously oomprehended. I think, theretore, that,

rollowiag the example or British analyt10al philosophers, oue Bhou~

begin with analys1ng the bas10 not1ons~ and that at pre8ent thRt

18 the most important task. An endeavour of suoh an approaoh 1a my

book, ~ podoiaw muzeolog11 !The Bases of Museology!, Warsaw, 1980,

wbioh beoause ot the 1ansuage barrier !in ethnioal sense! is out

ot reaoh ot & w1der publio; a p1tYr tor it systematizes and analYB~'

2

~be probl~ms whioh are also disoussed in the presented papers.

l'or all the vari"lty of views presented in the papers Bome oOllUllon

pointe oan be found. The definitions of museology, different as

they are, represent in essenoe two types of its understanding based

on an empirioal asoertainment that there is a separate field of

aotiv1ty - field M. However, some see this field from the point ot

view of the funotional elem"lnts making it up IdefinitioDs ot p­

typel, while others try to disoern ita sense as a totality Idef1­

n1t10ns of S-type/.

Type P: In these definitions field M 1s represented by the

museum along with ita funotions and partioular work prooesses, and,

aooordingly, museology is eithor to deal with all the aspeots ot

museum work luniversalism - S. M. Nair, for 1notanoe/, or with the

most important ones only II. Jahn/. In order to integrate suoh an

atomized museum into a funotional whole it 1s neoessary to adopt

a unifying faotor in the shape of normative musp-ology divided into

different museologiel3, suoh as those oreated. in greatest numbero

by ~he Dutoh oolleagues. However, all those mussologies have their

specifioity in their names only, as it would be diffioult to tell

what is wmuaeologioal" about them.

Definitions of this type enolose implioitly a meohanistio Ith~

.useum - a funotional aggregatel and instrumental Ithe museum ­

a tool for the realization of arbitrarily imposed and heteronomio

a1msl oomprehens1on of tho mUU9um, aom~th1ng I have submitted to

a oritioal examination in my book.

Type 5; Pield M i8 being approaohed here from the point of view

of a human being who inVests it with some sense. This Bense 10

saen 1n the relation ot the human being to reality, some sae it,

however, 8S "admiration" /W. Russio/, while others a8 the "innate

tendenoy to oolleot" /J. Hodge/_ This type of definition expresses

3

interesting and, in my opinion, fruitful intuitions, the oonorete

formulations, however. laok preoision, and the authors are not

oonsistent, slipping in their further oonsiderations towards the•

positions related to type F /universalism, normative museology,

variety of museolog1es, or at least an instrumental oomprehension

of the museum/. A pity, for the beginnings were good.

II. Detailed remarka

I skip here the exoellent paper of Z. Z. Stransky /Czeohoalovakia/

as I agree in full with its oontents. I also leave out the problems

related to training, and restriot myself to purely museologtoal

problems as the first derive from the latter, they spring from the

oomprehension of museology and the museum. I would like to stress

that all the papers oontain many interesting ideas and remarks

/espeoially on the subjeotof training/ whioh it would be worth­

while to synthetize.

s. K. NAIR - India

The definition of museology given by the author represents the

universalist comprehension of the disoipline: mus601ogy's task 1s

to deal with all the aspeots of museum work, and, henoe, 1t ap-

'pears as a sum of knowledge on various speoifio sUbjeots drawn

trom various speoialistio disoiplines. Thus museology as suoh

dissolves in the variety and speoifioity ot the knowledge and

m!thoda of those other d1ao1p11nes. What 1s ·museolog1oal~ boila

down to a systematization ot this un-own knowledge aooording to

a pragmatioal oriterion iB8u1ng trom the totality ot museum work.

A systematization, however, i5 in itsel~ not a knowledge, but a

methodological manipulation. Moreover, the author, as a majority

ot the diDouD8~d ones, represents an instrumental wld meohanistio

oomprehension ot the museum. The museum, however, 1s not a tunotlo-

4

nal agpn~, bu~ fire~ o~ all an entity invested in all its elements

with a specifio sense, and, therefore, museology oannot be a "me­

ohanios" sinoe meohanios is unable to reason out this sense.

G. W. BURCAW USA

Acoording ~o the author museology is to be a normative Boienoe:

/a/ it "presoribes what museums ought to be in regard to sooiety",

Ib/ i~ "deffes the partioular organizational and prooedural struc­

tures and relationahipB". Two kinde of norws effeot from this: /a/

axiologioal, and Ibl praotioal. In what way does museology Justify

ita normative sentenoes? Axiologioal norms oan be justified on the

ground of some philosophy, 800iolog10al knowledge, or even politioal

or sooial dootrine; praotioal norms on the ground of the knowledge

o~ partioular speolalistio disolpllneo. ThUS, on the one hand, we

have norms based on definite systems of values, and, on the other

hand, norma based on oausal laws or other general sentenoes of

soienoe whioh means that they oannot issue from eaoh other 10 lo­

gical sense. Prom the axiological norm: ~Th~ museum should tp'8ch,

~or 801enoe io a sooial valuo" do not eneue any norms describing

in what way it should be done. A~10logioal norms have only an im­

perative and a mo~ivating ~unotion. They indioate what goala should

be aimed at aDd give reasona for this in philosophical, aooiological,

politioal juatiticationa. They direot the aotivity but do Dot glv~

any oonorete, detailed ruleBo~ aotivity. Henoe, the same partioular

aotivities may serve different norma of imperative funotion as well

as different motivations, and the only thing that will ohange is

the oonfiguration ot superior goula. And so it 1s 1n faot. In all

museums the world over the basio mueeum work £o~low8 tho name pro-

oesses ot aotivity, different are only auparlor goals 3S the author

h1maelt atates on p. J of hie paper.

fhe desoribed 20gi081 and opArat1on~ 03eaura bp."tween the two

5

kinds or norms oauees a split o~ general muaeology into two inde­

pendent seotions: /1/ museum dootrinephilosophioal-ideologioal in

oharaoter, and /2/ a "oompendium" of general knowledge abou~ the

runotioning or ~he museum /more about that in my book/. In their

particular expansions the praotioal norms inoluded in this oompen­

dium rind their jU8tirications in theorems of appropriate speoialis­

tio disoiplines; that applies also to so oalled speoialized museolo­

gies. Henoe, those norma are the results or oonsequenoes of researoh

results of other disoiplines, and belong to them rather than to

muaeology. What ia more, museology would be helpless without them.

It appears, then, that the ·oompendium" along with speoialized mu­

s60logies is not an aooumulation of museologioal knowledge but of

an alien one. Thus the seotion oalled museum dootrine remains the

only on~ peouliar to normative muaeology. This seotion, however,

oonsists of unstable and oaprioious 6xiologioal norms shaped aooor­

ding to plaoe, time and personal preferenoes of partioular museolo­

giats. Henoe, it d06S not possess any gnosiologioal value, or, for

that matter, any operational value for basic museum Nork. Its entire

role oonsists in findlng out what museums should be in regard to

sooiety whioh, however, implies that museums are formations

b r 0 ugh t to sooiety as if from without. On the other hand,

If museums were oreated and have eXisted for several hundred years,

there must have been some 8001a1 need of them. They emerged from

1001ety Uadf, were Dot 1mpolI~d on 1t, and are immanent and not

transoendent to it. It appears from this that the need that haB

oreated them 1s ooded in them and deo1dea boui their es!enoe.

Hp,noe , it 1s superfluous to state &:lobi trarl1y *hat museums should

be 1n re6ard to soolety, but there 10 an urgent nEod of. disoovering

what thp.y are Inthelr deepest esSenoe. The aDSl'fer to the que"tion;

"What 1s and in ~hat oonsists the essenoe of the museum?" should be

6

regarded as the main research task of muaeology.

I. JAHB - GDR

Aooording to the author the role of mUBeology should oonsist in

1ntegrating the knowledge of varioua di80iplines towards the crea­

t10n of a muzeologioal the 0 r y. In what this integratlon

should oonslst and what should the theory be? Let us analyse, tor

1nstanoe, the tollowlng prinoiple taken trom the literature IF.

Waldmann, ~Galerlen alter Melater~, in~ Kunstmu8ee~~ dae

deutsoh~ Yolk, Hftnchen, 1919, p.511 and whioh oan be formulated in

the folloWing manner: "For all x-s, it x la a small painting o~ tue

northern sohool, the most favourable illumination tor x i8 a high

lateral one~. There are museologioal terms in the sentenoe: ~a

small painting of the northern sohool" , and ~the moat favourable

illumination~ and so it may be oonsidered as B museologioal "law".

In :taot, bowever, it expresses an optioal law illuatrating rel_

tions existing between the variable phyaloal parameters S ot the

sur:taoe o:t any solid body x and the parameters L ot the light re­

flected from it, variable aocording to the optional angles ot in­

oidenoe A and the parameters L. One of the parameters of olass L

with the oorresponding angle of 018s8 A is the one most favourable

tor "small piotures ot the northern Bohool" trom the auseologioal

point ot view. But, first, the oited optioal law is an ideallzQtio­

nal one lit does not take into aooount different seoondary oondi­

tions, e.g. the thiokness and slant ot the pane through ~hloh the

light talls/, and, seoondly, it does not say whioh one ot the p ­

rameters L is the most favourable :tor museum ends. Henoe, the opt~­

oal law itself is in this 08se u8elesu; it may well explain the

museologioal prinoiple IAlaw"/ at lasue~ but this prinoiple oannot

be eduoed from it. And indeed, it has been eduoed from purP. prao­

tioe, by trial and error, and moat prQoably unknowingly of the

7

oited optioal law. One can safely say that. in this oase the role

o~ museologioal "theory" is none. Por there exists no possibility

to establishtheoretioally the interdependenoe between the parame­

ters ot a physioal natur6 /here parameters L/ and, tor example, the

preferenoes in the sphere of values /here the moat favourable illumi­

nation from the aesthetio point of view/.·

There are also laws pertaining to different disciplines whioh

are not idealizational onos /faotual lawsl, and whioh, moreover, do

not express the relationships in variable qUlUltitios IWhioh wa.s true

about the oited optioal law/ AS they define non-gradational inter­

relations. Suoh laws offer no pOAsibility of a v·sluing ohoice, at

th~ beat they oan be not applied. It is also often impossible to

"oheok" them in praotioe by trial and error, unless in laboratory

oonditions and 00 worth2eso samplos. Anyway, it one wants to aohieve

SODe deBired reBult,ohe must needs rp.alize those laws in ~ull. And

again, naturally, museologioal "theory" haa got nothing to say herp..

What, then, should be th~8 "theory"? It oould be either nothing but

a "oompendium" of praotioal knowledge, a ooll~otioo ot "prinoiples",

i.e. generalizations aoquired in the prooess of praotioal aotivity,

ao well as of indispensable information trom the realm of knowledge

ot other disoiplines with the "integration" always ooouring on the

plane ot prao~e; or 1t oould be a museum dootrine /or. my remarkB

to G. 3. Buroaw's paper/ uniting, and in this oenaeintegratlng,

var10ul prOOtllel ot museum work by setting them one superior goal:

the realisation of the so01al funotion of museums.

The present-day musaology seema to be in an impasse. The postu­

late to oreate a muaeologioal "th~ory" as a link between praotioe

and the knowledge or various dloolpllnes in sImply an expression of

inoomprehension ot mUSeum praotioe. It 1s being oonoeived 8S It th5

mUseum were a faotory - meohanistioally, .ber~a8 We have to do here.,

with inoessant valuing ohoioes whloh no~heory" is abl~ to "1nt~-

gratew with any laws o~ solenoe. Tho most important thing is

p r a 0 t i 0 e oonsoious o~ its relationships wlth the knowledge

ot various disoiplines and ot th~ e sse n 0 e o~ what 18 being

done. Henoe the oonolusion: the main task ot museology ls the study

ot the essenOe ot the muaeua as a sooial and oultural phenomenon.

~08SIO - Brazil

1. The relation man objeot that, aooording to the author, mua~o­

logy should deal with-distinguishos iteel~, in her opinion, by &

epeoial oontext dosoribed as "musealiso" and "l'enoeinte du mUGee".

However, the absenoe o~ an exaot deflnition of these notions makes

the definition ot museum taot worthless. The notions ot "admira-

tion", "re-vislon" and "re-leoture" are somehow oonneoted with this

taot, but they do not make the definition any more preoise either.

The attitudes o~ man towards the world desoribed by them ooour also

outside the museum, in liter&ture, art, philosophy, history, and

these two last mentioned are also taotors in oreation and evolution

ot any tradition. /Gf~ the definition ot museologloal tact in my

book./

2. The term "interdisolpllnariness" ls, to my mind, abused in mu­

seolo81oa1 oontex~. This does not mean that 1nterdlsoip11narinesB

1. impossible in the muaeum; in oertain oases it may even be rea­

lized. rhe faot itaelt, however, that in 80me tield ot activity

the knOWledge of other disoiplines is uoed does not determine an•

Interd1.o1pllnar, approach, but at most may lndloata a multldlso1-

plln&ry one. It, on the other hand, We look ~or necessary relation­

ships !oausal, g8netl0, funotionall between remote phenomena uGuall~

investigated Indep~ndently of one another and by di!f~rent d1sQi-

pline', then and only then we have to do with an interd1Boiplinary

investigation. Sinoe tho author does no~ say anything on th~ 8ub­

jeot of those neoessary relationships, one ~~y presume that ahe

9

uses the term "interdisoiplinarineos" 1n the OGnS8 of ~multldlsoi­

plinariness" land thisappliea also to the papers of S. H. Nair and

I. Jahn/.

). The notion "system" has two meanings: 111 obJeotive - a oohesive

totality of things and relations oonneoting them, and /21 logioal,

ideal - a uniform, ordered aooording to rules, internally oohesive

and diam8mbered totality of knowledgo of a given disoipline. Speaking

about a system of knowledge /here auseology/ we oan only have in mind

a system in sense 12/. What the author demonstrates in her table

Ithe same i8 true about I. Jahn'8 tablel is system in sense 11/; a

system of things Imuseology and other disoiplines as oo-operating

elements of a funotional wholel, or, striotly speaking, a systemio

desoription of the struoture of muaeologioal disoipline in its re­

lations with other disoiplines.

J. HODGE - Australia

1. Tho author bases his definition of muaeology on the notion at

innate "propensity of man to oolleot". Thia"propeosity", however,

manifests itself in sooiety in very different ways, refers to diffe­

rent yalues. and is variously realized. It would be diffioult to

put an ~quation mark betwe~n the aooumulation of grain in an eleva­

tor, or that ot gold in Saf~8, and the aooumulation of obJeots in

the mus@um, although in all theBe oaBes one 1s talking about ~oou­

mulat1on. The author, tor hie part, does not define the speoifioity

ot museum aooumulation, a8 a result of whioh his definition of mu­

seology i8 d~void of any diagnostio or oognitive value. It aleo

remains an open question whether th~ ~propen81ty of man to oollent~

is an innate quality, or on~ aoquired in the prooess of sooializa­

tion, or, perhaps, an innate one but SOmehow 6ubJimated and rationa­

lized in this prooess. The 8nawer to this question, however, oannot

be expeoted from museology; i't is the task ot oultural anthropology

10

and psyohology ~o give 1~.

2. One oannot agree wi~h ~ho pos~ula~e of ~he author ~t "museology

should not only Justify~he existenoe of ~UBeums but determine the

na~ure of museums· /p. 6/. The existenoe of museums does not requir~

any Justifioation by museology; they were orea~ed beoause ot a de­

finite 800ial need, and their existenoe 1a juatified by ita reali­

zation. Henoe, muaeology should help mUS6\lmS to reoognize this need,

as well as to realize it. This need is ooded in the museum itselt

/understood as a oultural phenomenon, and not as an edifioe or 1n­

s~itution/ and constitutes its very essenoe whoso otudy should be

~he main task of museology. It is not museology #at determines the

nature of the museum; i~ is determined by sooial heeds that have

brough~ the museum 1n~o existenoe. It must be mentioned that these

needs must be understood very broadly within the oontext of meaningo

and values.

S. GoRAHSXHAR - India

The author s~ateB: /i/ ••.. ,all these disoiplines /i.e. seotions of

museum work - w. G./. otherwise independent, gain a different

con n 0 ~ a ~ io n in the prooess ot museum development and hanor

are grouped as museologioal.". and further on: /21 "The me~hodology

ot mU8eology thu8 oolleotively s y nth e s 1 ze s the methodo­

logy of these disoiplines towards speoif1c n~eds of museums." /p.4/

~ar11er. ~he author explains ~ha~ /J/ " ••• the methodology of musp.-

ology1s the disoipline oonoerning the very purpose and organ1za-

~ion or Buoh an ao~lvity" Ip. 2/. IAII emphases mine - W. G.I

Assertion /1/ caUBeS thn question what thin different oonuotB­

tion oons1sts In. It is answpred by assortion /2/: It oODsists in

the synthet1zat1on of methodologi~a ot various d1801p11n~8 /in the

meaning given in po1nt /1// "towarde specifio needs of museume"

whioh, aooordl):1g to aasertion /)/, osn mean investing them with e.

I!

oommon superior purpose P. In other worda, the said diaoiplioPB D

/In 'the lIIeaning given.1n poin't /1// acquire a superior purpose P

they originally did not posoesa by thelllselves, and enter into rela­

t10nships in whioh theynorlllally do not ooour outside the IIIU6eum.

ThuB we obtain a definite relational system R that OBn be oonsidered

in two parallel aspeots: /1/ notional - BS aBe m 8 n tic syste~

S, and /2/ material - 8S a ~ uno t ion a 1 system F. The re­

lationships in which disoiplines D ooour in system R, if it is under­

stood a8 a system S, 'invest these disciplines as oultural units /in

the understanding of U. Boo/ with 8 new oonnotation they did not

possess earl1er, thanks to a new situation /oontext/ in which theY

normally do not ooour outside the museum. But system R, oonsidered

under another aspeot, is at the same time syatem,F in whioh disoi­

plines D aotually oo-operate towards the aohievement o~ purpose P.

Co-operate, i.e. solidarily partioipate in mus~um work, and sinoe

they partioipate in it, they are, as partroipating, mueeum disoipli­

nes /the author oalls them "museolog10al" - o~. point /1//, no lon­

ger no matter what dlooiplincs they used to be outside th~ museum,

but preoisely museum disoiplinea. Th~y aoquire a sort o~ a n~w

oonnotation of "being muaeological", i.o. "oo-opp.rating ~o.ard8 a

common museum goal". And it is on this that this different connota­

tion of whioh the author speaks in assertion /1/ seems to be baa~d.

It would be d1~fioult to say that it 1s oognit1vely a fruitful re­

8ult as the only thing we learn from it 18 that what 18 related to

the museum can be desoribed as being Mmuseologioal" lor "of 8 mUB~um

nature"l. The quest10n r6mainB whether on~ oan really speak about

aynthetizing diaoiplinp.8 D by meana of the Il1t'Ithodology of mU8p.ology,

and in what ouch synthetiziug ohould conalet. One must agree, it

seems, that prooessea of work speoifio to eaoh of these disoiplines

oontinue to fol1011 in the framc:work ot -r.Ale lIlU8/lUm the oourse SPfIOl-

12

fie t:o t:hoir principles, although towards some superior purpose F

different: from those which could have ruled them outside the museum.

Those disciplines huve been. aftor all dravm into museum work exactly

because of their specificity as indispensable for the museum. Since

this spec:ii'icity remain·s intact, one could hardly speak here of any

synthesizing. The notion "to synthesize", therefore, can be interpreted

in two different way:) in the context in which the author used it

lassertion 1211, both of these interprotations are, however. unaccep-

table. To synthe!'lize rneiilns to invest disciplines D with a common sellse. , .

lassertion 1311 for which no methodology is suitable, or to outlino the

limits of the co-operation of disciplines, i.e. of un organizutional

iystem which is not the :business of museology but. of the discipline

known as organization theory.

July, 1983

Wroclaw - POland Wojciech Gluzinski

13

Zbynek Z StranskY, Brno - Czechoslovakia'

.METHODOLOGY OF MUSEOLOOY AND T.RAINING· OF PERSONNEL

COMMENTS

)

Comments on standpoints submitted by the :f"ollowing authors:BURCAW, GLUz:.r~SKI, GORAKSHKAR, HOmE, JAHN, MENSCH, POUW,

SCHOUTEN, NAIR, R~SSIO, SCHREINER levent. STRANSKt/

"From fairest creatures we desire increase,That. thereby beauty's rose might never die,But as the riper should' by time decease,His tender heir mlght bear his memory:"

w. Shakespeare

PROLOGUE

Standpoints to the given subject are very dif:f"erent. Butthis is natural.

We are from diff'"erent countries and continents, our back­grounds are different, we· live' in dif'fering environment, andconsequently many a time acquire dissimilar knowledge and ex­perience. But in spite of the great distance in terms of spa­c.e and ideas, in spite of varying ideological attitud'e weshould look for the unity, unity of what is universal, unityof'" the species known as homo sapiens - using all accessibleways and means.

We should ace'ept there:fore the challenge pronounoed byBURCAW that it is good to discuss in spite of the di:ffer-ences.

APPROACH TO THE SUBJECT

III

In the submitted standpoillllt.s uncommon lrl'forts make them­selves £elt to contribute in the most positive terms to the

clari£ication of the subject. Here we do not meet - 8S it isusual' at similar occ'ssions - only the expression of a common

14

opinion, but much deeper intellectual backgrounds are shown.Many authors pUblicize original approaches and a number o~

new notions. It would be desirable could these positive reat­ures not remain concealed only in these documents.

/2/The submitted syllabus of the suhject induces a number

o~' partial and complex questions. Consequently, many authorshave directed their attention only t.o these problems, whichhas resulted in~awing the gist of the subject out or account- the SUbject that shol,lld be di~cussed. by the two internatio­nal commissions. Next time,we 8hould realize that the forum fo,a.: scientific discussion requires to lay down only such a sub­ject that can be solved within the pe~tinent forum.

/3/Our attempt to solve scientifically the SUbject of metho­

dology in museology and education of museum WJrkffrS - certain­ly another level is not concerned - connot be based only onthe museological domain and educational experience from muse­ums. Here not the proper gnoseological problems or museologyare concerned, but the problems of scientific or non-scienti­fic character of this potential branch are discussed. Therefo­re when using such ':'. tarms as e.g. method, methodology, inter­disciplinary charactel", we should realize we .are on the levelof science of science and these terms,.can be used only withinthe context of their present scientific explication, evenfuoughwe cen ~use simultaneously our own approach.

/4/The subject of museology is not only of our c·oncern. It

is connected with the general development of society, but es-. pecially of proper science. Among ourselves we can repeat,perhaps one hundred times, museo~a1E's science. A resolut­ion in this respect may be passed by the rCOM gener.al confe­rence /this has actually happened/. By this, however, museo­logy will not become 8 science.This;, may happen only after it

J5

begins to share by its own gnoseologieal contribution the de­velopmentof scientific knowledge, and after the other branchesof' 8cien~e have begun to exploit the benefits of·museology.Therefore we should strive 1hat: our works in the area of' museo·_logy may not remain only on the level of perc'ept ion, pract icalhints and w~shfUl thinking, but that they are in the scienti­f'i~ respect on such a level that they can hold their ground ifSUbjected vo a matt,er-,of-fact criticism and if compared to theproduction of' other branches of science.

/5/When solving the problem of museology existence only so­

me authors have gOiVien cons iderat ion to the proper hist orie:aldevelopment of' museology. When preferring the synchronous ap­proach,the diachronic approach should not be left unnoticed.By becoming familiar with proper development Df' museologiGlalthinking we could' f'ind a wsy for solution o~ a number of theo­retical problems. In this connection I would like to expressmy thanks to HODGE that in his standpoint he reminded us of'the design to publish some historical works .::on:.. museology un­der the common title· "Fundamenta museologic·a".

/6/We ha~e a lot of deficiencies in the methodological level

of' our work. One of' them is the fact that when solving partialproblems we do not commene:e with the critical analysis of thepRst attempts and when referring to any of the authors, notalways his standpoint is precisely interpreted. Many a time re­ferences and bibliography are missing, which is acceptable whenexpressing our own standpoints, but they should not be left out

in pUblications. This is not a formal requirement or efforts tocreate semblanc.e of' scientifia: charl:!cter. Also the ethical as­pects are involved. More repeatedly we can see today the accept­anoe of' ideas of' other authors in the museological literature.This is only natural and desirable. But nll of us should adopt

the principle that always the Bource must 'be 'referred :to, even

though the text is not quoted lit er~llly.

16

PROBLEMS OF APPROACH

11/In agreement with the given syllabus most of authors hav,e

tried to approach the sUbject by determining their own conceptof' museology.

If compared with the articles we read in MuWoP 1/80, BUR­CAW, GLUZI~SKI, HODGE, JAHN, MENSCH et al. provided much adeeper and more serious reasoning of' the gnoseological intent-

) ion of' museology.' Nevertheless, there are great differences inindividual approaches. As ~egBrds the gnoseological intentionthe authors may be divided into two groups. ~he first group IA/

) is represented by BURCAW, GORAKSHKAR, and NAIR. They can seethe subjec't of mueeology in the museum. The second group IBI em­braces GLUZI~SKI. HODGE. JANN, MENSCH et 81., and RctSSIO levent.STRINSId/. These authors are mostly oriented to unmat'erial ob­jeets.

If comparing how these concepts of' museological knowledge

condition the forming of' museo1ogy,it should be stat'ed that theadvocates of group A d'o not find a suf'fic iently independentand specific area of knowledge. As a result, they take recour­se to a great number of any oonceivable branches of' science andtechnology. Conversely, the approaches of authors in group Bpoint out the gnoseological areas that provide much better con­ditions f'or development of a specific scientific gnoseologicalactivity. In these cases the theoretical gn03eologioal leveland the application one are much more clearly differentiated,

thus liberating the museological gnoseological process frombranches and techniques that are naturally linked with the

function of museum as ao institution.

We would not like 1:"0 say the conception of authors in

group B is free ftom any problems. On the contrary, a more de­tailed analysis - which would be very desirable - could prove

the vague character o~ many standpoints. For instance, the

otherwise instructive article written by MENSCH, POUW, and

SCHOUTEN" which is based on the gnoseologic'al orientation 01'

museology in the SemlEl of' natural and cultural heritage, at·-

17

tempts also to apply semioti~B to the museological sphere,which has been ~ound bene~icial also with the other authora/ROHMEDER, POPOVIC - STRANSKY', SULEIV. But here it is rather8 one-sided aspect, just in the relation to the given sUbjector knowledge. Very use~ul is also the analysis o~ the so-cal­led real /RM/ and postulated /PM/ museology given by GLUZI~­

SKI who, however, oversees the general l~ws_gov.'e.rning the de­velopment o~ scientific knowledge. m1SSIO who uses "~ait mu-

l seal ou ~ait museologique" as a SUbject of gnoseologi~al in­tention o~ museology, applies the c'oncept of' fact 1;.00 intui­tively, thus weakening her own theoretical explication.

/2/Aithough methodology is the central concept o~ our ap­

proach, nobody - except ~or BURCAW /event. STRANSKt/- has spe­ci~ied this concept. But as it is obvious ~rom the context,its explication is not qui.t'o· unambiguous in all cases.

When solving the issue of' methodology and museology theconception of' the gnoseological object is o~ basic signif'ican­ceo Consequently, BURCAW f'rom group A has arriwed at a conclus­ion there is no methodology o~ museology, and GORSHKAR andNAIR ha~ admitt~d the existence of several methodologies, butthey are the methodologies of' involved branches. Theref'oreneither in this case a special museological methodology eanbe re~erred to, not even in the meaning suggested by GORAKSH­KAR, namely that it is a synthesis of' these methodologies.However, BURCAW-as one of a few-realizes this is the image ofthe present state that does not preclude the separlt.ion of' sucha speaial methodology in the future.

From the authors in group B it is GLUZIrtSKI who has avoi­ded the main problem, which is largely due to the fact thathis concept of the so-called "M - factor" induces the conelus­ion that museology isp..am!!:lunder the semiotics of' culture, t.husadmitting only the use of extraneous methods. Conversely, HODGE

shows it is museology that must assume the decisive role andthat'.s why he has written "the museum is one manifestation ofmuseology". It is a pity he has not· drawn.' methodological con-

18

clusions from the leading. position of museology. JAHN hastried to bring her. ,theoret ical .conclusions up to this leveland has been right .. to 'underline the requirement of' deductionof specific museological methods,in agreement with the cha­racter of gnoseological intention of' museology. Thereforeshe says if there is "one museological knowledge" there mustalso be .. only one methodology of museology". Similerly, anidentical approach is ,shown by the team of' authors MENSCH,POUW, and SCHOUTEJ(. By their explanation ,muse,ology "covers-the whole area f'rom philosophical knowledge to manual skills:'.Similarly to their diff'erentiation of the gnoseological approachinto several areas, also "the methodology developed in thosefields" .by their assertiion.

/3/In spite of' tha di~erences found in determining the gno­

seological intention of' museology, most ·of authors agree topostulate' the leading role of the system of' museology for thet'raining programme. According to BURCAW "task of museum train­ing is to build in the student this museological base for themaking of' sound museographical decisions". This fundamentalrequirement of mastering museology is further specified by so­me authors, namely in the relation to the system of this branchas it has been justif'ied by them. GLUZI~SKI makes the require­ment that the training programme involves both the theoreticalmuseology and the practical one. Similar c~nsiderations are ma­de by the group of Dutch authors: who, however, alsO emphasi­ze the requirement of' mastering the historic:al and social re­lations. In this respect, JAHN has advanced still f'urther andhas emphasized also the requirement of mastering the methodsof involved branches, but 6nly ~n' a general f'orm. In agreementwith concrete problems of securing the training of museum wor­kers GORAKSHKAR and NAIR have brought this subject to prac­tical conclusions, which obviously in many respects go beyondoUr subject. Nevertheless, I believe they are right to pointout the problems of training of' technical personnel with se­condary school education, since neither this area may be leftunnoticed. It is just in the relation to these problems that

19

)

the role museoLogy is to pl~ should be realized, becausewithout it the 'l}Pecialized training would, be oIL _c;f,1he rrontactwith museum work.' The requirement of difrerentiated museolo­gical~8ining is also duly emphasized by MENSCH and his col­leagues and so it is by JAHN.

The authors could be said to put aside, to a large ex­tent, the methodological aspect and concentrated on, th~ project­ion of proper museological systems into the training program­mes. On the one hand', they hav'e proved that such a training mustbe organized in compliance with the development of museology,but simultaneously its structure should correspond, to a cer­tain extent, to that of mus'eology and its role in gnoseologi­cal and realization respects. Because of weakening of the pu­rely methodologirrsl approach only some authors - e.g. HODGE

- have hinted at the part acted by paedagogical methods.

CONCLUSIONS TO BE DRAWN

From the·abo~e characteristics some conclusions may be,drawn on which the discuasion in the two international com­missions should concentrate. They are:

1. The nequired form of giving their standpoints to the per­tinent subject has not allowed the authors to justify theirconcept and determine the structure of museology so as itwould be desirable from the methodological standpoint. Ne­verthelees, they have proved - in spite of ~'deep dif­ferences - there is a certain specific area of man's relat­ion to the reality that should' "be studied scientifical­

ly. Here not only the application of existing branches of

science and techniques is concerned, but also the format­ion of a new branch of science with its own gnoseologicalmission. Through scientific knowledge of this specific a­rea not only its substance should be revealed, but by stu­dying it it can be largely altered within the intentionsof social progress.

2. Proper problem o~ exempting museology 8S a possible branch

of ncience is such at present that the methodology o~ mu-

20

I

..eology understood as a "system of methods" /BURCAW/ or a"theory of methods" /STRANSKf/ can be talked about as a jus­tifiable postulate but not as a fact.

3. 'lhe mus·e.doi9-a;!i. education a.annot be realized and shaped out ofthe conta~t, with museology and its development. Only throughmuseo10gy it c.an att.ain such a level that it is not only onthe ~Qvel of acquiring experience and knowledge but that itmay become a tool for creation of the real museologica1 pro­

:fession that is correspondiingly difrerentiated.

4. The requirement that the museologi;.:liJ educltion.:isl:ased cnJheIWttem­porary museo10gy leads to difrerentiation of this education,in agreement with the gnoseo10gical levels of museo10gy andits applications. However, this does not mean the structureof museology can be id~ntified with that of training program­mes. There is A pronounce·d d'ifference between the gnoseologi­cal proeess and the traning process, which should be fully ex­pressed also in the training programmes of museology.

5. As mentioned by BURCAW, "it is difficult to conceive of non­museo1ogists teaching museology, and of non-museum prOfession­als creating museum professionals". Therefore :favourable con­ditions should be created in ord~r that the training centresbecome,01't-e-iiternationa1 scale, also the centres of museo1o­gic.al work and that through positive museologiea1 activitieswithin the training programme the museo10gical production is

extended and 10~ensi:fied."At the same time, there should besuccessively applied the requirement of graduation in museolo­

gy as the precondition for employment of university graduates

and technical workers with secondary school education in mu­seums.

6. When emphasizing the closest cooperation between theoretical

and educational-muaeological aspects neither the paedagogical-didactic requirements must. be overlooked, since they .involvetheir specific problems related to the structure and the forms

of the museological and museog~8phic&1 education.

21

EP]LOGUE

The above ar~icles are full of c~nvietion that museologyis today of primary importanc.e f'or functioning of museums, es­pecially under the present very complicated conditions forthe f'uture development of' mankind.

If the newly conceived exhibition f'acilities - sometimeseven called museums - built with the' maximum exploitation ofthe mass communication med'ia engage today a wide attention,it results in a continuously decreasing social interest shownin museum facilities of' traditional character. This trend can­not be confronted by abandoning themuseum~positiona!and adopt­ing the attractive slogan of ant i m Ul se u.. m, but on thecontrary we should take the road of stUdying proper specifi­city and social signif'icanee o~ these f'acilities or briefly:

m use 0 log i sat i. 0 n of the museum work.

It is of vital importan~e for the museums that the matterof' museology is not understood as a narrowly specialized. pro­blem. The ICOM general conference held ~n London this yearshould contribute to the r.ealization of' the :fact that museo­logy must. become tthe major 11.001 in the development of museumaff'airs and the programme content of ICOM. The lCOM leadingofficials should the~ef'ore widely support further ICOFOM act­ivities and contribute to MuWoP becoming an official museolo­gic~l platf'orm, where not only the presence, but especiallythe future of museums and their role in the society should bedecided.

June, 1983Brno - Czechoslovakia Zbynek Z Stransky

•22

Pierre Mayrand, Montreal- Canada

LES DEFIS DE L'ECOMUSEE I UN CAS, CELlII DE LA .HAUTE-BEAUCE

L'ecomusee de la Haute-Beauce au Quebec,

BASIC PAPER

En juillet 19'/9 naisnait Ie Musee et c:entre regional d' inter­

pretation de la Haute-Beauce, embryon du futur ecomusee. Le ter­ritoire de la Haute-Beauce se situe aux confins sud-ouest de la

sous-region de Quebec, la Beauce, reputee pour la richesse de ses

traditions ornles. Car.act~risee par son ~16vation et p~r ses vues

6tendues que l'on decouvre des villages sommet, situes sur despro~ontoires rocheux, heritages des glaciations millenaires qui,

ont fa90nne Ie plateau appalachien, la Haute-Dcauce s'i~pose d'cm­blee au vlsiteur qui l'aborde de l'Est ou de l'Ouest. Bornee parla riviere La Chaudiere, corridor traditionnel d'echanees, par laregion voisine de l'Estrie, aux caracteristiques loyalistes, heri­

tage des migrations americaines, par les crateres miniers au Nord,enfin par la frontier.e americaine au SUd, la Haute-DeBuce emergc

comme un monument naturel dont Ie centre geoeraphique est constitup.par les Monts Saint-Seb~stien, blocs granitiques dominant la rl;gion

a huit cent metres.

5i la Haute-Beauce presente des caracteristiques aussi marquees,

il n'en dp.meure pas moins qu'elle :rut ignoree par sa population, e1:

qu'elle fut laissee pour compte par les administrations. Commentexpliquer, par consequent, l'eveil soudain d'une population a~ro­

forestiere au potentiel illimite de ses ressollrces humaines et deson environnement, Ie role joue par l'ccomusee dans les processus

de prise de conscience active se traduisant par des gestes d'une

grande qualite museolo~ique ?

L'exemple de Napoleon Bolduc.

Artisan-menuisier, fils de cultivateur, Napoleon Bolduc forme

un univer5 imaginaire fonde sur ses souvenirs d'enfance de meme

que sur la creativite qui animait les hnuts beaucerons lars de lacolonisation rie la region, ii'la fin du sii~cIe dernier. II entre!J'"end,

en 1950, de meublp.r son Grenier d'objets caracteristiques de la

23

l

civilisation materie~le et spirituelle du plateau. Illes scenarisedans des arrangements qui tiennent a la fois du collectionneur etdu museologue, tentant d'organiser nans un espace restreint toutesles composantes de la vie d'autrefois. II s'en degage une vision dela societe rurale et un choix qui fait de Napoleon Bolduc un ethno­logue sans Ie savoir.

La notoriete populaire du » Musee aux mille antiquites » etantdevenue telle qu'il ne put seul, avec >;on epouse, repondre a lapression grandissante des visitAurs, dd~u par ses demarches auprisdes autorites gouve~nementales At par l'elitisme qui presidait aujugeme"1t des experts sur la » valeur» Gcientifique de sa colle,ction,en butte a l'incomprehension de sa propre communaute, il fera con­fiance, en 19'/8, a des personlles qui lui offrirent en toute amitiecie tenter une experience inusitee dont les r";sultats pourraientrepondre a ses attentes les plus cheres, c'est a dire Ie maintiensde la collection clans sa region natale, la reconnaissance de son

travail.

L'embryon d'un ecomusee.

Les ecomusees etaient connus au Canada par une poignee de profes­sionnels travaillant dans les agences gouvernementales, notamenta Pares Canada. De nombreuh sejours d' etude en France avaient per:nisde faire circuler dans un milieu restreint les idees et les pratique~

mises de l'avant par Georges-Henri Riviere et par l'Ecomusee duCreuzot-Montceau-les-Mines, pour lesquels ces adeptes vouaient unculte inconditionnel, sans reussir cependant a mettre en oeuvreces principes au Quebec.

La nouvelle definition de la culture donnee par la POlitigue 9ue­becoise de develoEpement culturel, en 1978, les principes d'action

~nonC~B par la D~claration qudbecoise sur Ie tourisme culturel.les positions defendues par Ie gouvernement du Quebec dans Iedocument Le musee du Quebec en devenir, Concept museoloeigue (1979),

de meme que les acquis de l'animation culturelle en re6ion depuis

vinet ans, la crise des musees qui commen9ait a roindre, la publi~p­

tion par Ie Secretariat a l' am6nagement et a la d<-5centralisation du

24

)

)

fascicule La d~centralisationl Une perspective communautairenouvelle, contribueront grandement a cr~er une conjoncture fa­vorable a l'eclosion de l'ecomusee de la Haute-Beauce, vasteentreprise de planification et d'education populaire.

Les accords harmonieux d'un ecom~~ee communautaire.-.. "

Apres un an de pre-animation les concepteurs-promoteurs duprojet evaluent favorablement les chances d'implantation aupresdes haut.-beaucerons d'un musee-territoire, dont l'ammorce seraitIe centre d'interpretation. et dont l'aboutissant serait l'ecomusee.lIs adoptent un plan de developpement quinquennal ( 19(9-198) )repondant au processus illustre par Ie modele de trianeulationqu'ils imaginent, ayant a son sommet l'interpretation dent de­coulent les etapes de territorialisation, d'ecomusee, mus parles principes de se~sibilisation, 0e creation et de retroaction.L'hypothese fut realisee dans tous ses points par la creation, en1979, du Musee et centre regional d'interpretation de la Haute­Beauce; dans un presbytere dominant la region. la creation d'outilsde sensibilisation a la reeion ( la collection. les murales,l'exposition thematique .. Et DieQ crea la Haute-Beauce .. ), lacreation. en 1980, de la premiere ante nne " Le musee chez nous,par tous, pour tous n la division du territoire en cinq zonescaracteristiques ( Vallons, Cretes, Grand Lac, Coeur, ~rable )

aux noms evocateurs tels que les " Paysages qui chantent ", lesn Hauts lieux de la colonisation n, la formation d'un co:nite desusagers ( Le Recroupement ) reunissant les representants elus destrei7.e villages, l'integration structure lIe des d~leeues de zonea la structure decisionnelle du centre de services (198J), lacreation d'un Laboratoire d'experimentation ctinactique en milieurural avec ses trois volets op6rationnels ( Education de masse,education poplitique, intervention en milieu scolaire ), l'ins­

titution d'un cours de formation en museologie populaire ( 260personnes formees ) qui devait produire trois expositions collec­

tives, la realisation d 'un collectif de trei:>.e villages, Haute­Beauce creatrice, qui sera determinante pour l'implantationrnaterielle et sociale de l'ecomusee dent Ie vocable est officiel­lement adopte en 198J, La parfaite synchronisation des operations

aura permis Ie passage sans heurts du musee a l'ecornusee dans Ie

25

l

l

respect de son evolution naturelle et de son acceptation

progressive par une population entiere, selon Ie principe1'onrlamental que l'ecomusee n'est pas une fin en soi, qu'ilse defitif comme objectif a atteindre. Ayant franchi h3.r­monieusementsa premiere phase, l'ecomusee parait entrerdans la rleuxieme phase rle son evolution. La realisation dela Maison des F,ens de St-Hilaire, sous centre d'interprcita­tion rle la vie et de l'environnement d'un villaEe des Cretes.entierement congu, realise et gere par sa population usagere.exemple 1'rappant des savoir 1'aire museologiques d'une popu­lation apparemment non CJuali1'iee, laisse entrevoir des pers­pectives entierement nouvelles pour l'ecomusee, un enracin­nemment plus vivant encore d'un mileu dans son environnementa vivre.

Les de1';.s de I' avenir.

Une 1'ois atteinte la " musealisation " -lv terri toirepar la participat~on active des citoyens a la reali­sation de gestes museologiques, et par la transmutation deleurs savoir i'aire traditionnels en en visions elargies

de leur developpement par la cooperation, l'ecomusee devra­t'il s'enfermer dans son systeme acheve ou bien devra-t'illaisser la place a des programmes d'une toute autre nature?

Les acquis organi sationnels de I' ,komusee, la tres haute

conscience de leur savoir faire nouvellement acquis par lesusagers des treize villages, la cohesion sociale reelle quise degage de l' experience, :lans une population autre1'oisdivisee, i8018e, sont des iktruments ideaux pour la formationd'une nouvelle etape qui pourrait trans~resser des objecti1's

exclusivement culturels et museaux, soit celle de l'amenaeeme~

social et physique du territoire dont le processus est

auto~ere.

Afin d'en explorer les possibilites l'ecomusee travailleactuellement a mettre en place un C~ntre de recherche ·popu­

laire en ecomuseologie appliquee au territoire, dont les

objectifs s'apparentent a l'universite populaire. Le centre,

qui integre les structures existentes,aura pour mission de

se pencher, en collaboration avec le Centre local de services

26

)

communautaires (CISC) qui recouvre le meme territoire, sur des

options fondamentales de developpement.

Le maintiens des caracteristiques communautaires de cette cate­gorie .d'ecomusees, la preservation de son role actif, de memeque l'etablissement de liens permanents avec la communaute museale

internationale figurent parmi les enjeux importants de l'entreprise-

Juillet 1983Montreal - Canada Pierre Mayrand

27

Zbynik Z StranskY, Brno - Czechoslovakia

MUSEUM - TERRITORY - SOCIETY

COMMENTS

Comments on articl.es submitted by' the following authors:COLLLN, DESVALEES, HAAK, SCHNEIDER, TERRADAS, VEILLARD levent.STRANSJdI

O~ In spite of the fact. there was giv.en a syllabus for ela-boration of the giv.'ensubject, most of authors used their ownexplication of the standpoint quite freely. In some cases itis understandable' because of the prevailing descriptiv.e-inform­ation character' ICOLLIN" HAAK, VEILLARD/.

In my opinion the gist, of the matter has been best ap­proached by DESVALLEES and SCHNEIDER, whereas TERRADES has CDrtri­b~.ed 1P 1m clarif'i:ation ri"SOIJi! l:Bse ecdogic:a1 issues. In my paper Ihave tried to express the given problems in their comprehensi­ve· character.

1. If c'omparing the submltt.ed articles and authors' inter-pretation of the term "ecomuseum", event. general conception01 the specific approach to the reality, then it is obviousthat the abov,e term evokes quite different intellectual pro­cesses.Most pronounced is thisdiff'erence between the approa­ches of SCHNEIDER and HAAK.

It 1S only natural that the given subject - not beingclearly ;'unambiguous because of its terse form - can beapproached di:ff"er.ll.ntly. I clearly understand what HAAK writesabout. But I believe that the.' deep·. differences in the approachof' individual authors not only express the versatility of thegiven SUbject, but essentially they can be referred to majormisunderstanding or lack of understanding.

A group of authors proceeding from the concept of eco­museum,as arriv-ed at and realized in practice by G.ll.RIVIERE,is naturally bound to that conception and either they onlygive their comments or provide an example of its realization.

Even though the concept of ecomuseum has managed to penetratea number of countries, then it deeply rooted especially in the

28

plac::es with favourable conditions. This concept has CQme. in-10 bang tBnks 1D the e:rfort.s of RIVIERE to provide a new ap­proach to the concrete natural-social and monument-museumproblems, which have not been solved in the examined areasor rather not solved satisfactorily.

The practical examples presented by COLLIN and VEIL­LARD have proved the viability and functionality of this con­cept. But without the. necessary generalization one cannot de­duce a new type of museum from the above assertions.

This has certainly bean realized" by many authors and·therefore in a number of articles on the problem of ecomuseumwe aan see· the attempts to specify the characteristic featu­res of such a museum. For instanc.e, DESVALEES refers to theso-called definition formulated by RIVIERE in 1978. But it isjust in the relation to· this characteristic idea of ecomuseumthat it can be pro~ed that this definition is not unambiguous.There c:ontinuES to predbminate the practical knowledge over thereal generalization that would justify the statement that eco­museum is in fact: a new type of museum.

The problems of a new type make themselves felt stillmore markedly if also the type of regional museums is takeninto account, especially the so-called "Heimatmuseum" that wasoriginated in the second half of the 19th century and at thebeginning of the 20th century in Germany and the then Austro­Hungary. Obviously, this type can be found still today.

In many standpoints on ecomuseums there apprear the at­tempts - as is also the case of COLLIN's conclusion - to con­front the ecomuseum with the traditional museum that is pre­

sented 88 8n institution exclusively focused on the past, whe­reas the ecomuseum '..: directly del!lllJ with the present needsof the place t CI> whilllh' it, refers •.,

Finally, the concept of ecomuseum covers a variety offunctions that certainly emanate especially from concrete re­

quirements of the place, while some essential functions ofthe museum are missing.

)

l1spitQ)\ of them only tersely outlined problems, :t. ta­ke it especially SCHNEIDER and TERRADAS are right when theytry to include the problem of ecomuseums in wider and todayvery urgent ecological relations. In my opinion, it is onlythrough ecology and from the standpoint of ecology that thenecessary theoretical basis can be found for the solution ofthese problems.

2. Therefore when confronting the sUbmitt~d articles Ibeliev.e tha~ SCHNEIDER-and to a certain extent also my paperI took the liberty t9 submit - indicate the whole breadth inwhich the problem should have been solved.

I would not like to arouse an impression I wish to un­derestimate the impa~'t of ~.oncret.e results on the establish­ment of museums of this type or to weaken the contributionRIVIERE has made when pushing forward' such a new orientationof the museum wp,rk. Just the opposite is tr~e. By emphasizingthe wide scientific basis, i.e. ecological and museological,these efforts for ecomuseums should be brought to appropria­te relations, and proper meaning and significance of so con­ceived museum should be demonstrated.

~ beli'eve it is the role of the seminar organized onthis subjea~ to strengthen the general ecological orientat­ion of' museums through it. In my opinion this goal cannot beachieved by simple preference given to ecomuseums, but by fol­lowing the road of' pronounced ecological orientation of thewhole museum world as I have tried to explain.

~he ecological orientation of a museum cannot be onlythe matt,er of direct connecction of' this institution with na­tural and living environments,and popularization 0f ecologi­cal sUbje~ts, but it should permeate the whole profile ofsuch a museum, i.e. especially its COllection-forming orien­tation.1 E here:"fuet{~~or obstacles are encountered. Unless wesuceeed in establishing the ecologically oriented collectionsystems, then we shall hardly succeed in developing in thisspirit the presentation, cultural, and educational activities,if' we want that these facilities remain also in the future in­stitutions wilh a muswmcharacter.

30

)

3. Many documents and examples can be found in museumsthat are related to the ecological subject. This orientat­ion may be ~ully justified by its high social urge. This ispossible and for concentration of information on this orien­tation of museum activities it. is also userul. However, if wewant to proeeed and espe~ially improve the standard of theecologioal orientation of museums, then we must get to thenecessary generalizing, theoretical basis. in agreement withthe latest knowledge of the contemporary science. The seminarprovides a great opportunity to do so.

June, 1983Brno - Czechoslovakia Zbynek Z Stransky

31